If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think what he meant was how it was structured. The Pats could structure the year 1 hit as the avg and the Steelers won't be able to match in 2013 without cutting players. For example, if the contract averages say 5 mil a year, year 1 of the Pats deal could be a cap hit of 5 mil. They Steelers may be able to give Sanders a contract matching the toal & avg of 5 mil but not give him a year 1 deal for 5 mil. I believe under the CBA, that would not be a posion pill because it dosesn't exceed the contract avg. Someone else in here may have the CBA resource to confirm. One part of that "poison pill" restriction was for teams front loading a contract that exceeded what it all averaged out to be because the knew the team couldn't absord that year 1 hit.

As Slapstick pointed out, on page 40 of the CBA (55th page of the PDF) that there can be no poison pill based on, for example, games played in a certain state.

However, and I haven't looked through the rest, it does not appear that there is a restriction in terms of how the contract is structured. There may be something else in there, but I don't have the time to review right now...

The Steelers lost one wide receiver during free agency, and could now lose another as restricted free agent Emmanuel Sanders is visiting New England Friday, according to an ESPN report.

However, unlike Mike Wallace - who signed a 5-year, $60 million deal with Miami earlier in the week -the Steelers have total control over whether or not Sanders will be back.

The Steelers placed a $1.323 million original-round tender on Sanders last week. If the Patriots sign him to an offer sheet and the Steelers don't choose to match it, the Steelers would receive New England's third-round draft choice in April's draft (91st overall) as compensation.

NFL organizations don't normally make it common practice to target restricted free agents because of the high price tag of a new deal coupled with forfeiting a draft pick, the Patriots could present a contract to Sanders in way that the salary cap-tight Steelers couldn't match.

The Steelers are approximately $3 million under the $123 million salary cap. They will pick up another $5.5 million in cap space June 1 because of the release of guard Willie Colon earlier in the week but that money is likely being designated to sign their draft picks.

It's unlikely the Patriots would be willing give up a draft pick for Sanders because they have only five picks this year.

Sanders is expected to be the Steelers No. 2 receiver this year behind Antonio Brown since the departure of Wallace despite starting only eight games in his three-year career. Sanders will turn 26 on Sunday.

The Steelers have veteran receivers Jerricho Cotchery and Plaxico Burress on the roster, but not much in terms of experience after that.

As Slapstick pointed out, on page 40 of the CBA (55th page of the PDF) that there can be no poison pill based on, for example, games played in a certain state.

However, and I haven't looked through the rest, it does not appear that there is a restriction in terms of how the contract is structured. There may be something else in there, but I don't have the time to review right now...

Thanks! I assume you could see what I am talking about. I believe there was a restriction introduced (Not sure if it was part of the approved) about the structure. Also had to do with guranteed money too. A team could offer a 5 year 30 mil contract for offer sheet. Structure it that year 1 base doubled the contract avg. Year 1 cap hit ends up being 12 mil. The tender team can match the 5 year 30 mil but doesn't have 12 mil space for year 1.

sanders dropped a lot of balls last year, particularly after being hit. The steelers have always been smart with their money. if they see a future with a player, they never let it get to the point where they can test the market. that's why we all knew wallace was gone beginning of last year.